At what point can you consider yourself a "chess expert"

What is the criteria you would use to decide if someone was a chess expert or not?  I know in real life it is a 2000 + UCSF/FIDE rating but what would be the online equivalent?  

maybe you can convince the fide president to define this term as being better than an as high percentage of active players as you ever currently top. maybe this would help you out? no seriously, dude. what is the point of this question? looks to me like the same intellectual bad habit as your idiotic claim on our first or second game you would have "won" it. 

I just checked the game you are talking about.  Considering that I offered a draw multiple times and that you had no chance of winning, I stand by claim that I "would have won it".  I ended up beating you anyways in our match so it doesn't bother me as much.  What you did in that game was terrible. I have never seen someone resort to such desperate measures to flag someone on time.  It is truly despicable and a reflection of your character.  Here is the game so anyone can see: https://www.chess.com/live/game/1543766455

The list below is just quick uneditted list  for what i think in general you have to understand and apply to be considered chess expert. I don't claim everything must be true or right and honestly many experts don't know  at least 1/3 of this or deeply. Ofcourse i might be wrong for some things, but the idea is for amateur beginner/intermidate to have rough idea.

1. You have to understand every major opening and be able to play it and to transform from unknown/rare to more common for you (not to blunder and lose out of opening) And not only memorization. But they say best is to know only 2-3 lines deeply for each color and would be enough.

2. You have to understand pawn structures from different openings.

3. Study a lot of classical games from masters - follow big players all the time to be in shape and have an idea how they handle some positions.

3. You have to be very good at tactics. Don't lose pieces by tactics to lower rated opponents. So you have to have good calculation and visualization skills. Blindfold play is a plus. Pattern recognition - you have to spot from far possible mating patterns or tactics.

4. You have to be able to maneuver freely knights or any piece in close positions, to spot weak squares or outpost (not to be lost in a position and don't know what to do at all)

5. Strategic and positional play, being able to make waiting moves and not to rush for quick attacks etc.

Also to know when to attack and finish opponents, sound sacrifices, pressuring your opponents..

6. You have to know  king and pawn/rook endgames, but even GM's blunder rook endgames.

7. Other common endgames bishop vs knight, opp color bishops, unballanced , 3 pawns vs rook or piece etc. Master all fundamental endgames

8. You have to hold the advantage and be able to transform it to winning position or hold the draw when you are in worse position when possible. (up/down exchange) - common endgames QvR RvB etc , checkmate with Knight and bishop vs king..

Don't blunder pieces just like that at all or to minimum.

And your rating should be above 2 000 and probably close/above to 2200 over the internet (if your otb rating is below 2000). I probably missed a bunch of absolutely nessecery stuff but can't really remember it now. And as i said some stuff even master don't know perfectly but in general is smth like this.

Many strong players say everything up to 1800-2000 level is all about tactics. So you can ignore openings and positional strategic play or study minimum and if you study most of the time tactics and calculation and know basic stuff and fundamentals for other areas you will be fine thanks to brute force of your calculation abillity.

When you can lose a valuable piece eg. queen or rook, and still win the game.

Yea the thing is you don't have to be that much high rated (2000) or to win every time vs 1800 to be considered  expert at chess by average/massive chess player which is 1200-1300 rated or even below actually.. You are already "God" for majority of population if you are for example 1800 rated.

I remember one time about 4 years ago when i was very casual player who just started to play 1 min bullet chess (before that only as kid i played chess) and i was passing by a park and saw few players playing chess - without clocks. I played one game and took his queen for a rook in middlegame. Boy all of them were totally impressed, they never saw rook lift to join the attack.. But my actual rating would be no more than 1400-1500 rated...

Well if you ask an IM - Do you think you are very strong absolutely master at chess? Most of the time he will answer you with - No at all. He still makes bad mistakes compared to GM's or even other IM's. And at blitz 5 min game he can lose to 2000 untitled rated player. Actually a lot of experts have couple wins vs IMs/GM's at slow chess.

I know for example IM John , he said , when asked : what was his worst lost? and his reply was: he lost to about 1500 rated when he was a master if i remember and he played the scandinavian which is his main opening..

What counts is comparsion to majority of players.

Have to remember even strong masters sometimes are playing like amateurs and i do not mean only a single blunder. That can happen more often.You never know when your opponent will have a bad day. 

What came to my mind now is when you go out at your local club or street and you play 10 games vs few players and if you win all games and their rating is around 1300-1500 rated then you are an absolutely expert to them.

Probably that can be said for internet. Play 10 blitz games vs ~1500 rated, then 10 more vs another, and another player, do this vs 10 different players win all of them (not by pure luck or on time) then you are true expert to the massive players.

I believe in the 2000+ rating. The reason why is that there are a lot of people who "know" chess but can't demonstrate it on the board. I think it's like being street smart vs. book smart.

Chess experts have demonstrated a mix of both. For something like online ratings, I think it's a little different, but just to put in a modest estimate, I think someone who has legitimately (no computers) holds a 2200+ Standard Rating on chess.com or Internet Chess Club probably is at least equivalent to a USCF 2000+.

Online ratings shouldnt be taken seriously at all , for obvious reasons . Even GMs and other professional players have been caught cheating so comparing online play to otb is like comparing golf to putt putt imo . 

OTB you play only players in that specific area (your local chess club rated tournaments, not the big international ones). Chess.com and internet brings you the world. You play and compare skills with players all around the world. Saying online ratings (not turn-based chess or long controls ofcourse) can't be taken seriously is just out of question. (Maybe some other chessites, but this is #1) Blitz 3-5 min chess you can hardly cheat - yes there are some but the majority is clean.

Ofcourse internet and OTB is very different. But not in skills. Actually many players here have low blitz rating than their USCF OTB rating and thats not becouse they played cheaters or simply don't care.

You just have to adjust to 3d board and stuff which will take a lot of practice games. First time i sit down and played otb after hundreds of internet games i was lost. Could not track what's going on in the middle game, only becouse of the 3d. Specially knight moves or distand bishops. It is the same with otb only players that dont play online. They just get demolished. At fide arena server i noticed many old veterans are joining. They have high OTB rating from the past but their rating quickly drops.

I just played an otb event in which there was a new ( to otb tourney chess anyway ) player there who was eager to play an otb tourney due to his big success online in both blitz and bullet chess . The games were G/60 D5 time control and he played in the under 1600 ( Reserve ) section . He went 0-4 !  It was a rude awakening to real chess for him  .  

Same as i wrote above. I know a guy from my city with no fide rating or national rating otb. He is above 2000 blitz here and at fide server and over 2200 turn based chess and tactics. We do not have chess club and nobody play chess at parks it's very rare to spot someone. And at his first tournament he makes performance of 2250~ 50+10 time control. He even defeated veteran IM and posted game

I give pretty much 0 credence to online ratings unless youre a titled player.  

From what I've seen, online ratings seem to be around 200 points higher than OTB ratings (give or take). Of course, there are exceptions.

Generally, though, a 2200 online is probably around 2000 OTB.

My fide is 2126 so i'm an expert xD

I consider there to be no online equivalent for many reasons (#3 being the case for me):

1) It's easier to cheat

2) Many of your opponents probably cheat

3) Many of your opponents don't give two hoots if they lose in some online game whereas OTB is taken far more seriously.  Many of their online games are to test out openings that they've been studying whereas OTB they will likely play their "bread and butter", etc.

4) You don't see anybody playing 40/2, SD/1 or similar time controls (Game in 30 minutes or even Game in 60 minutes is NOT the same thing) online.

5) Analysis on a 2-D board is actually very different than a 3-D board with actual pieces.

6) The effort level of opponents is not the same.

7) Even with "Online" chess, #'s 1, 2, and 6 still apply.  Correspondence with email or snail mail might be slightly more valid because they aren't playing 200 games at once - would be a lot harder to do so.

You could have a Chess.com Blitz rating of 2493, an Online Rating of 2341, and a "Standard" rating of 2315, but if your Over The Board rating is 1550, you are still a nobody!

sadly for nos 7) is now can be done with engine.